Angelgate & Baltic House Claimants (Various) v Key Manchester Ltd & Ors

Angelgate & Baltic House Claimants (Various) v Key Manchester Ltd & Ors

While it is arguable that the developments amounted to a collective investment scheme, there is no properly arguable case with a real prospect of success that Oliver & Co were carrying on any regulated activity or that any remedy is available against them under s.26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Oliver & Co acted only as conveyancing solicitors in a facilitative role, not as operators or managers of a collective investment scheme.

Parties
Claimant: Various Angelgate & Baltic House Claimants; First Defendant: Key Manchester Limited; Second Defendant: Oliver & Co Solicitors Limited; Third Defendant: 174 Law Solicitors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Amendment Application / Case Management Hearing; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Application to amend particulars of claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Collective Investment Schemes, Regulated Activities, Amendment of Pleadings, Remedies Under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
Financial Services Law Civil Procedure Collective Investment Schemes Regulated Activities Amendment of Pleadings Remedies Under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Various Angelgate & Baltic House Claimants

Claimant

Key Manchester Limited

First Defendant

Oliver & Co Solicitors Limited

Second Defendant

174 Law Solicitors Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Amendment Application / Case Management Hearing; Application to Amend Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the developments amounted to an unregulated collective investment scheme under s.235 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether Oliver & Co Solicitors carried on a regulated activity in breach of s.19 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to remedies under s.26 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 against Oliver & Co

Ratio Decidendi

While it is arguable that the developments amounted to a collective investment scheme, there is no properly arguable case with a real prospect of success that Oliver & Co were carrying on any regulated activity or that any remedy is available against them under s.26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Oliver & Co acted only as conveyancing solicitors in a facilitative role, not as operators or managers of a collective investment scheme.

Court Disposition

Application to amend particulars of claim dismissed

Orders

  • Amendment application refused